Taurus 945 opinions

I was considering adding another 45 to the collection. Presently have a Sig Sauer 220ST, which I really like; however, it is a bit large for me to have on ccw. The logical choice would be the P245, but I'm disappointed in only 6 rds for such a large compact. Also have a Sig P239 in 40 which I shoot really well and is totally reliable which fits nicely into a Galco pancake and will be on my ccw next yr, and probably don't need to be thinking of another purchase. Most of the 45s are not for me: Glocks -- one went kaboom on me 6 months ago; 1911's -- not comfortable with cocked/locked; P.O. -- cumbersome disassembly; Baretta Cougar -- pretty much a full size and the c version looks goofy; Ruger -- another brick. Then, there's the Taurus 945 which has the slide mounted safety/hammer drop, disassembles easily, and looks just fine. I know their Millenium has decent reviews, but I prefer the db/single action.
Any thoughts? And Happy New Year.
P.S. I had some back luck 15 years ago with 9mm Taurii.

My dad has one...it sits at our store. He has owned iut for about 9 years now...it's been loaded the whole time. Mag springs are still prefect and I've NEVER had a failure at the range. It's a damn good gun, I might eventually pick one up for myself.

Kevinch

January 1, 2003, 10:42 AM

I have a PT940, & it's a great gun. Based on my experiance, I'd recommend it - although I believe the PT945 is a little larger.

PCRCCW

January 1, 2003, 11:38 AM

In all honesty, the PT is a great gun. Ive had a 940 and currently have a 911.....sourced a PT945 for a friend of mine that has been bullet proof. You wont go wrong with one...Shoot well

Baba Louie

January 1, 2003, 11:46 AM

Right after my 1911's and my Glocks, I hold/shoot my 945 in the highest regards. Never a problem so far, (knock on wood). If I didn't own the 1911's or the Glocks it would be first in line... maybe.

I'd go ahead and buy it if'n I were you.

Adios

cmsgt

January 1, 2003, 01:24 PM

Happy New Year.
It's a beautiful sunny day here in Red Lodge, MT. Drove by the golf course yesterday; saw someone practicing on the fairways partially covered with snow. Gotta fly back to work tomorrow.
Anyway, researched the 945 Taurus on SEARCH on an old good forum that passed away yesterday and found mixed reviews, many actully recommending the Ruger over the Taurus 945. Last p.m. was considering forgetting an 03 purchase.
Then, this a.m. I read the good postings on THR; and I am seriously again considering the 945. I do appreciate the inputs so far.
So, my next step was to click on the California Approved by DOJ list of handguns; and to my amazement, the 945 is NOT there. Guess I'll send an e mail to Taurus to see if they have any intention of putting in on the list. The ridiculous requirement in CA is that the test costs $1500 per gun, per model, per finish, per length of barrel, and these tests are required every yr or two!
I see that the Millenium is on the "approved" list (I made a mistake above in that reviews on that were positive; they were not! -- frame cracking, etc).
Might have to wait til 04 to get a new 945 -- don't mind buying used revolvers, but for semi-autos, I prefer to be the original owner.

Gopher

January 1, 2003, 11:11 PM

Let me say this right up front. The only reason I dont still have my 945 is it hammer bit the hell out of me. If it wasnt for that fact I'd still be carrying it.

It's about the same size as the Sig and in some cases the leather will work for either model. Mine shot everything I put in it without a problem. Factory mags were cheap and plentyful. Double action pull was heavy but smoothed out with time. Single action pull was excellent. Good accuracy for an out of the box gun. Taurus has had good luck with its metal framed guns but the jury is still out on the plastic ones. If you can get the 945 for a good price I'd recommend it. Mine was blue and the fit and finish were nice. There are aftermarket night sight available now too but grips may still be a problem.

My only other piece of advice would be to shoot one first if you can. I've seen post on TFL and other forums and hammer bite seems to be the biggest drawback. You might also look here for more info. http://www.unitedforums.com/cgi-bin/tfcgi/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro

Forseti

January 2, 2003, 12:30 AM

I've fired a PT-911, and got to examine a PT-945...looking at the above posts, what is meant by "hammer bite"? My hand was safely under the metal "beaver tail", and I was never bitten by a PT-9xx gun....I'm guessing some kind of minor injury involving the hammer...?

.45FMJoe

January 2, 2003, 01:15 AM

I personally have never had any problem with hammer bite. Nor have I had any problems with it at all. Very nicely made gun, that's my $.02.

Lochaber

January 2, 2003, 02:25 AM

I've been looking at one myself. I believe that the hammer bite issue was more common with the older models. If you browse around a bit you willl find pictures of both models. The older ones had a shorter beavertail. The newest ones have one about as long as that of the CZ's and a smaller hammer. Their most recent PDF catalog (online at their webpage) has the correct picture for the new model, however last time I checked the plain online catalog had the older model pictured.

Loch

PCRCCW

January 2, 2003, 09:28 AM

Ok...guys. As far as I know...the PT945 has only been made in one frame....the shorter version you guys see is the PT911/40/57 series...you can tell the 945 by its curved backstrap.
Its a single stack large framed gun...not to be confused with the med frame mentioned earlier.

Taurus is to blame for the confusion...for gods sakes, they still show the PT945 gun on their website for the PT911...Ive discussed this with the CS Supervisor and it is the wrong gun.

I can also say the only complaint you will find on this gun is the hammer bite issue...Ive seen it. The gun I sourced for my buddy bit him until he changed his grip...its never bit me..not yet anyway. The rest of the 'negative reports" you hear about are people who get the PT145 confused with the PT945...its a common mistake.

The gun I found for my buddy was a first year run and is identical to the current production...the only changes are the lock and a ported barrel is offered now....not that it needs it. Its honestly the softest recoiling 45 Ive shot to date.......

Get your gun...youll love it. They are absolutely dependable, accurate, comfy, thin and have the best safety on the market.

Shoot well

rblack

January 2, 2003, 06:30 PM

Here is one I bought about a year ago, with factory night sights. It was a great shooter and very reliable, I traded it for a Colt that I just couldn't pass up. Mine never bit me by the way.

cqWpa

February 3, 2008, 06:18 PM

I've had a PT 945 in use for a couple years now. I liked the way it felt, bought it, and shot comfortably and accurately with it right out of the box. I shoot action pistol with it a couple times a month, not to mention a little extra practice here and there. I have had no problems and it seems happy with everything I've fed it so far, including reloads. It's a comfortable carry gun and meets my main requirement - reliability. I would definately buy another.

The Lone Haranguer

February 4, 2008, 09:13 PM

Do they even make it any more? This thread is five years old. :neener:

I had one in the mid 1990s that was an absolutely dreadful lemon.

Moonclip

February 5, 2008, 04:12 AM

I have the .38super PT38 version, reliable but won't lock the slide back when fring it:( I met a guy once at the range that liked his PT945 better than his Colt 1911a1. And My neighbor has the .38super PT38 that has no issues that are not ammo related. I'd buy a PT945 if reasonable priced.